Diver convicted in wife's drowning

[wedivebc]

I watched the Dateline version of this incident. I have not read all 390 posts on the topic so apologies if this has been covered but that show left me with reasonable doubt about David's guilt. They posed the panic scenario which is plausible and would explain the damaged mask and the removed fin. I also believe oxtox may have a similar outcome. It is undetectable postmortem yet could have left the diver thrashing violently during the seizure. Since British law is based on the concept of reasonable doubt I would have to say if I were on that jury I would have been unconvinced of the prosecution's case.

 

[bsee65]

Your snorkel lost it's mouthpiece because it was KICKED OFF your face by a buddy.

By David's own admission he was "nowhere near her" when the incident occurs. Show me how she can kick her own snorkel off her face and then you just might have something there.

Add to that that the mask pin was missing, those two things in of themselves are a very unlikely coincidence.

Then throw in all of the other mitigating factors...quite often when there is a death there is no one around to tell the tale, and circumstantial evidence has to be considered because there's nothing else to go on.

If the law was structured in such a way that there could not be a conviction in this case, it's unlikely that there would EVER be convictions unless there was an actual tape recording of the crime.

I don't see that as much of a "coincidence" at all. Whatever action resulted in one probably resulted in the other. Nothing in the evidence tells us if that was something done by David, by an unknown outside agency, or self-inflicted under panic, medical emergency, or for some other reason.

We'll end up deeply in the realm of speculation if this continues. In fact, everything related to this trial is deeply in the realm of speculation. While I have no wish to see criminals get away with crimes, we are supposed to be willing to accept that as the cost of avoiding the conviction of the innocent. That's what "beyond a reasonable doubt" is all about. Whether you think David did it or not, I don't see how you could convict him on this evidence. Maybe watching the special would change my mind, but I doubt it based upon the posts from people who did.

 

[captain]

What bothers me most is apparently there was only a rather simple inconclusive autopsy that listed drowning as the cause of death. No mention of bruises, scratches or other marks to suggest a struggle. I would tend to expect someone fighting off someone to have some injuries

 

[idocsteve]

Maybe watching the special would change my mind, but I doubt it based upon the posts from people who did.

The Dateline special won't tell you anything you don't already know, the details are covered much more extensively here on this thread, however, I was really shocked at David's casual and disconnected attitude during the interviews.

 

[idocsteve]

What bothers me most is apparently there was only a rather simple inconclusive autopsy that listed drowning as the cause of death. No mention of bruises, scratches or other marks to suggest a struggle. I would tend to expect someone fighting off someone to have some injuries

Why?

It's not like a wrestling match on land, which would be more of a power struggle.

If it happened as the prosecution suggested, and the jury believed, all David had to do was pull off her mask and shut her tank valve and prevent her hand from reaching behind her to turn it back on.

With the element of surprise to his favor, there wouldn't be much if any physical confrontation. And it wouldn't have lasted very long.

 

[bsee65]

What bothers me most is apparently there was only a rather simple inconclusive autopsy that listed drowning as the cause of death. No mention of bruises, scratches or other marks to suggest a struggle. I would tend to expect someone fighting off someone to have some injuries

I'd agree, especially with people suggesting that the damage to mask and snorkel would require great force to be applied. You would think that there would have at least been some sort of marking around the head, and that it would have been noted at the trial.

I have now also read the transcript of the Dateline show and that presentation doesn't seem to say anything useful. Maybe it was better as a full video than on paper.

 

[ScubaInChicago]

What bothers me most is apparently there was only a rather simple inconclusive autopsy that listed drowning as the cause of death. No mention of bruises, scratches or other marks to suggest a struggle. I would tend to expect someone fighting off someone to have some injuries

I wold have to agree with the above, I just saw the Dateline episode as well. From where the body was located between the wreck, I would think a strugle would have left the victim with a brush against the wreck or the hard bottom causing some kind of abrasion.

A jury of his piers should have consisted (at least a couple) of persons with diving experience. I would also be interested in seeing if there was any mention of solo diving in her logbook....

just another 2psi

 

[idocsteve]

I would also be interested in seeing if there was any mention of solo diving in her logbook....

just another 2psi

And also a reference to using part of her gear...ANY part of her gear, as a means to somehow assist her in fish counting.

 

[ItsBruce]

For all those who want to see some divers on the jury: Who wants Dadvocate as the representative of the diving community? Who wants Bsee65? Who wants me? Who wants Idocsteve? Who wants SadiesMom?

See the problem? SadiesMom is a diver and with her knowledge, experience and training, she would be favorable to David. OTOH, Idocsteve, with his knowledge, experience and training, would be unfavorable.

Everyone is better off with people who don't know about diving and are willing to listen to the experts and decide the case based on their testimony.

 

[ItsBruce]

I saw the Dateline show. What I got from it is that there is a fair chance of a reversal and new trial based on the trial court's exclusion of defense expert testimony. The prosecutor argued that David's testimony about when he split away from the deceased establishes that the two were together at the scientifically proved time of death. The defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence to show a different time of death. While a different time of death might not provide an alibi, such as David having already gotten back on the boat, it would impact the specific statement of the prosecutor.